California Cops Taze Man after entering without warrant

[TechBoyJK]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ed_1368536550

Not exactly clear on the backstory, but what I've read says the cops were responding to a noise complaint that sounded like domestic violence, and the residents told the cops everything was ok. Cops say they are going to come in and investigate. Guy says 'not without a warrant' and the cops insist.. eventually kicking down door and tazing the guy filming.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

this just in:
cops do whatever they want

 

[techs]

Inside the cops found three kidnapped women who had been held captive for up to 10 years.

Wait, never mind.

 

[Brovane]

Interesting. Not sure what the probable cause was besides contempt of cop. They probably should have stepped outside to have that conversation. Surprised the video didn't disappear mysteriously.

 

[exdeath]

I reiterate, steel reinforced ICF block construction and laminated polycarbonate "polar bear aquarium" grade windows. Protected surveillance system and gun ports to provide suppressing fire to thwart any attempts at placing explosives or using cutting tools. Fire proof, bullet proof, robot tank proof, everything proof short of calling for an air strike.

Not getting in without my say or a Tomahawk cruise missile, warrant or not.

I have no beef with police but as we've witnessed the last couple months even honest innocent "law abiding citizens" are always only a stroke of a pen away from being instant "criminals" and enemies of a corrupt tyrannical regime.

You're only a law abiding citizen until the things you've enjoyed for 30 years are suddenly made illegal. You can make anyone you want an instant target.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

OK here's the deal.

Some time ago, many states got fed up with going out to pick up a drunk husband beating on his wife, and then failing to convict in court because the wife recants/won't testify, or failing to even make an arrest because the woman with two black eyes and split lip who just called the cops, now says she "fell". Obviously this didn't do anything to lessen domestic violence or keep coffers filled. Governments aren't in the lose-lose game so laws were passed. Most of these laws go something like this:

If the cops are called out to an address on any kind of domestic violence call they are statutorily REQUIRED to arrest someone.

Also, they are statutorily required to thoroughly investigate the situation and if they suspect anything is amiss, they are REQUIRED to arrest someone.

As far as the door goes, the man under these new laws has no right to deny the police entry to a crime scene, which it is automatically considered.

Also, the person arrested is automatically guilty. They may not be guilty of domestic abuse, but they are guilty of violating the statute which forces cops to make an arrest.

In other words our representatives, in their infinite wisdom, have created a special place where the Constitution and all it's protections of privacy, due process, etc. are not worth the skin they're written on.

 

[twinrider1]

If they honestly thought a domestic was happening, I believe they're allowed to enter. Tons of cases of battered women flipping their story once the police arrive.
I'm believe in our rights, but testing them just to test them is high douchary.

 

[techs]

OK here's the deal.

Some time ago, many states got fed up with going out to pick up a drunk husband beating on his wife, and then failing to convict in court because the wife recants/won't testify, or failing to even make an arrest because the woman with two black eyes and split lip who just called the cops, now says she "fell". Obviously this didn't do anything to lessen domestic violence or keep coffers filled. Governments aren't in the lose-lose game so laws were passed. Most of these laws go something like this:

If the cops are called out to an address on any kind of domestic violence call they are statutorily REQUIRED to arrest someone.

Also, they are statutorily required to thoroughly investigate the situation and if they suspect anything is amiss, they are REQUIRED to arrest someone.

As far as the door goes, the man under these new laws has no right to deny the police entry to a crime scene, which it is automatically considered.

Also, the person arrested is automatically guilty. They may not be guilty of domestic abuse, but they are guilty of violating the statute which forces cops to make an arrest.

In other words our representatives, in their infinite wisdom, have created a special place where the Constitution and all it's protections of privacy, due process, etc. are not worth the skin they're written on.

Shens.

 

[Sixguns]

Ban cops!

 

[Jaskalas]

Welcome to North Korea.

 

[OutHouse]

OK here's the deal.

Some time ago, many states got fed up with going out to pick up a drunk husband beating on his wife, and then failing to convict in court because the wife recants/won't testify, or failing to even make an arrest because the woman with two black eyes and split lip who just called the cops, now says she "fell". Obviously this didn't do anything to lessen domestic violence or keep coffers filled. Governments aren't in the lose-lose game so laws were passed. Most of these laws go something like this:

If the cops are called out to an address on any kind of domestic violence call they are statutorily REQUIRED to arrest someone.

Also, they are statutorily required to thoroughly investigate the situation and if they suspect anything is amiss, they are REQUIRED to arrest someone.

As far as the door goes, the man under these new laws has no right to deny the police entry to a crime scene, which it is automatically considered.

Also, the person arrested is automatically guilty. They may not be guilty of domestic abuse, but they are guilty of violating the statute which forces cops to make an arrest.

In other words our representatives, in their infinite wisdom, have created a special place where the Constitution and all it's protections of privacy, due process, etc. are not worth the skin they're written on.

please link these statutes that you are talking about.

this was a mini ruby ridge.

 

[zanejohnson]

business as usual....

only thing different is everybody has a camera now

and when there are drones... everyone will have a drone

 

[highland145]

We don't know if the cops saw the wife. If they did not, they're coming in. You don't like it...tough. If they leave and the spouse turns up dead, everyone gets sued.

 

[gevorg]

land of the brave cops

 

[SamQuint]

This is the law in California

Cal. Penal Code § 836 (D)

(d) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), if a suspect
commits an assault or battery upon a current or former spouse,
fiance, fiancee, a current or former cohabitant as defined in Section
6209 of the Family Code, a person with whom the suspect currently is
having or has previously had an engagement or dating relationship,
as defined in paragraph (10) of subdivision (f) of Section 243, a
person with whom the suspect has parented a child, or is presumed to
have parented a child pursuant to the Uniform Parentage Act (Part 3
(commencing with Section 7600) of Division 12 of the Family Code), a
child of the suspect, a child whose parentage by the suspect is the
subject of an action under the Uniform Parentage Act, a child of a
person in one of the above categories, any other person related to
the suspect by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or
any person who is 65 years of age or older and who is related to the
suspect by blood or legal guardianship, a peace officer may arrest
the suspect without a warrant where both of the following
circumstances apply:
(1) The peace officer has probable cause to believe that the
person to be arrested has committed the assault or battery, whether
or not it has in fact been committed.
(2) The peace officer makes the arrest as soon as probable cause
arises to believe that the person to be arrested has committed the
assault or battery, whether or not it has in fact been committed.
(e) In addition to the authority to make an arrest without a
warrant pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (3) of subdivision (a), a
peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person for a violation
of Section 25400 when all of the following apply:
(1) The officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person to
be arrested has committed the violation of Section 25400.
(2) The violation of Section 25400 occurred within an airport, as
defined in Section 21013 of the Public Utilities Code, in an area to
which access is controlled by the inspection of persons and property.
(3) The peace officer makes the arrest as soon as reasonable cause
arises to believe that the person to be arrested has committed the
violation of Section 25400.

Here is a link for other states
http://www.americanbar.org/content/...rest_Policies_by_State_11_07.authcheckdam.pdf
Notice some say that there is a "mandatory arrest" policy and some say up to the discrestion of the officer.

So whether it is absolutely mandatory may be up to debate but several states say it is ok to make the arrest without the warrant.

 

[child of wonder]

So let's see:

1. You cannot defend yourself or your property if the police decide to enter your home or detain you illegally. Resisting false imprisonment or illegal entry is "resisting arrest" or "assaulting an officer." Using any sort of weapon to impede an officer will result in your death and each officer will receive a paid vacation and a medal once the "investigation" is complete.

2. Officers feel emboldened to act as they please since the department and DA will often help to cover up their crimes.

3. A citizen's only recourse is to allow the police to do as they please and hope they can later sue the police for civil damages. However, those damages come from tax payer money and paying out millions in lawsuits prompts the police department to request a greater budget and hand out more citations the revenue of which they in turn use to hire more cops who may potentially infringe on your Constitutional rights.

We absolutely need a police force and I applaud those that choose to go into such a dangerous and often thankless profession, but this system doesn't work. We need those that enforce our laws held to a higher standard and held accountable when they break those laws.

 

[ViviTheMage]

OK here's the deal.

Some time ago, many states got fed up with going out to pick up a drunk husband beating on his wife, and then failing to convict in court because the wife recants/won't testify, or failing to even make an arrest because the woman with two black eyes and split lip who just called the cops, now says she "fell". Obviously this didn't do anything to lessen domestic violence or keep coffers filled. Governments aren't in the lose-lose game so laws were passed. Most of these laws go something like this:

If the cops are called out to an address on any kind of domestic violence call they are statutorily REQUIRED to arrest someone.

Also, they are statutorily required to thoroughly investigate the situation and if they suspect anything is amiss, they are REQUIRED to arrest someone.

As far as the door goes, the man under these new laws has no right to deny the police entry to a crime scene, which it is automatically considered.

Also, the person arrested is automatically guilty. They may not be guilty of domestic abuse, but they are guilty of violating the statute which forces cops to make an arrest.

In other words our representatives, in their infinite wisdom, have created a special place where the Constitution and all it's protections of privacy, due process, etc. are not worth the skin they're written on.

I have heard these too...

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/domabuse.pdf

SNIPPET:

Criminal Procedure Provisions
Arrest Issues
Warrantless arrest. A peace officer may arrest a person anywhere without a warrant, including
at the person’s residence, if the peace officer has probable cause to believe that the person has
committed domestic abuse within the preceding 24 hours. The arrest may be made even though
the domestic abuse did not take place in the presence of the peace officer. Minn. Stat. § 629.341.
A peace officer must arrest without a warrant and take into custody a person whom the officer
has probable cause to believe has violated a domestic abuse no-contact order or an OFP
restraining the person or excluding the person from the residence or the petitioner’s place of
employment, even if the violation of the order did not take place in the presence of the peace House Research Department Revised: November 2012
Domestic Abuse Laws in Minnesota Page 18
officer, if the order’s existence can be verified by the officer. Minn. Stat. §§ 518B.01, subd. 14;

 

[jaedaliu]

So let's see:

1. You cannot defend yourself or your property if the police decide to enter your home or detain you illegally. Resisting false imprisonment or illegal entry is "resisting arrest" or "assaulting an officer." Using any sort of weapon to impede an officer will result in your death and each officer will receive a paid vacation and a medal once the "investigation" is complete.

2. Officers feel emboldened to act as they please since the department and DA will often help to cover up their crimes.

3. A citizen's only recourse is to allow the police to do as they please and hope they can later sue the police for civil damages. However, those damages come from tax payer money and paying out millions in lawsuits prompts the police department to request a greater budget and hand out more citations the revenue of which they in turn use to hire more cops who may potentially infringe on your Constitutional rights.

We absolutely need a police force and I applaud those that choose to go into such a dangerous and often thankless profession, but this system doesn't work. We need those that enforce our laws held to a higher standard and held accountable when they break those laws.

hrm, 1) doesn't apply here because the officer had reasonable suspicion that someone was getting their ass beat in the house. And it was his responsibility to investigate, and well within the law to arrest the guy he suspected of beating his wife.

so, I feel the rest of your story doesn't really have any sort of backing any more.

Oh, and if you did nothing wrong, why are you willing to get tased to attempt to deny the popo from entering your house?

 

[The Boston Dangler]

We need those that enforce our laws held to a higher standard and held accountable when they break those laws.

yeah, right. like the courts are going to crack down on their own goons. police always have and always will be protected from the laws they are charged with upholding - i have seen it with my own eyes and heard it straight from the mouths of police. police that aren't thugs, incompetent or corrupt are a tiny minority of law enforcement.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Oh, and if you did nothing wrong, why are you willing to get tased to attempt to deny the popo from entering your house?

that's some nice tyrannical logic there.

 

[child of wonder]

hrm, 1) doesn't apply here because the officer had reasonable suspicion that someone was getting their ass beat in the house. And it was his responsibility to investigate, and well within the law to arrest the guy he suspected of beating his wife.

so, I feel the rest of your story doesn't really have any sort of backing any more.

Let's say a neighbor made a phone complaint and claimed domestic violence was occurring? Is that reasonable cause to enter someone's home?

Oh, and if you did nothing wrong, why are you willing to get tased to attempt to deny the popo from entering your house?

Because if someone does nothing wrong the police have no right to enter their home.

 

[highland145]

Oh, and if you did nothing wrong, why are you willing to get tased to attempt to deny the popo from entering your house?

Are you serious? "Let us in because we say so." Hell no.


Without the whole story, I'm still siding with the cops. They get a domestic call and don't see/talk with the wife, they have a duty to check on her welfare. If they don't and she's killed, they're screwed. And the video didn't disappear so there is more to the story than just the video.

 

[RearAdmiral]

I reiterate, steel reinforced ICF block construction and laminated polycarbonate "polar bear aquarium" grade windows. Protected surveillance system and gun ports to provide suppressing fire to thwart any attempts at placing explosives or using cutting tools. Fire proof, bullet proof, robot tank proof, everything proof short of calling for an air strike.

Not getting in without my say or a Tomahawk cruise missile, warrant or not.

I have no beef with police but as we've witnessed the last couple months even honest innocent "law abiding citizens" are always only a stroke of a pen away from being instant "criminals" and enemies of a corrupt tyrannical regime.

You're only a law abiding citizen until the things you've enjoyed for 30 years are suddenly made illegal. You can make anyone you want an instant target.

How much does that stuff cost?

 

[highland145]

How much does that stuff cost?

Pocket change around here.

 

[jaedaliu]

Let's say a neighbor made a phone complaint and claimed domestic violence was occurring? Is that reasonable cause to enter someone's home?

yes.

Because if someone does nothing wrong the police have no right to enter their home.

Sure they did. There was a complaint of domestic violence, and they had a right (and I believe obligation) to go inside and make sure that everyone was okay.